D&D (2024) Size = Strength-Constitution?

[MGibster]

I keep thinking about Harrison Ford's comment to Mark Hamill when the latter complained about a continuity error from one scene to the next. Ford said, "It ain't that kind of movie, kid." And I kind of feel that way about D&D. I just don't think many people have a keen interest in some sort of formula to determine size rather than keeping it to species. Do I want a 5 foot halfling? Is that person even a halfling at that point?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So let me see if I have this straight. In one thread you make a joke about how there is no good reason for there to be halflings in the game, and in another to make it so they literally CAN'T have a combo of a higher strength and con and be a halfling but they must have dwarven or human genetics in them?

Man, I do not want to hear from you anymore about how there can't be racism in D&D. Not when you've decided to go on your own racist bender.

Mod Note:

I understand WHY you’re responding. But this is making a rules/mechanics disagreement into a personal one.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which is a racist sterotype. Little people can be very strong and healthy. There is no sound biological argument behind what you're stating, it's just a racist trope. You're advocating to codify a racist sterotype about little people, since you think halflings are an analogy for little people (though they are not).



Which, in fantasy terms, is another racist sterotype. Members of that race in D&D would call someone else saying that a racist, right?

What has gotten into you today?

Mod Note:

“Racist”? I honestly think you’re reading more into this than there really is. And in doing so, you’re making an ugly accusation that may not really be justified.

 

[Mistwell]

I think this is unecessary and don't understand the why of it. That said, "little people" are not a race and while denigrating them is abhorrent and bigoted it is not "racist".

IRL we do not have different intelligent, civilized species like we do in DND, so it is difficult to make a real life comparison. However I will point out that humans closest relative - Chimpanzees - are in general smaller than humans and in general MUCH stronger than humans.

Yes you're right I am using the term racist because the person I am responding to has been using the term racist for any version of any human. But of course you're correct, we're talking about bigotry not racism.

 

[Charlaquin]

walla.

It’s voila.

 

[Horwath]

However, I also agree with Stalker that in a fantasy setting anything goes. Heck, you can just look at the strength difference of chimps and humans of the same size to understand you don't need "magic" biology to account for incredible strength.

The chimp strength, even if measurably higher than humans, on average, is very overestimated.

Same muscle size between human and chimp is 35% higher strength on the chimp size, but that is because of lots of fast twitch muscles, around 2/3rds. But those tire out very fast, so humans have huge endurance advantage over chimps.

also in terms of weight, there is not much difference, world average for human is 60kg and for chimps is 50kg.

If we take it to game mechanics.

we can get human with 10 STR and d4 unarmed damage and 60% hit rate,
average 1,5 damage per hit

we give chimp 12 STR, only +2 racial,
and we get 1d4+1 damage and 65% hit rate,
2,27 damage per hit, +51% increase,
OFC if we based damage on greatsword, 2d6, increase would only be 24%, but between unarmed of 51% and greatsword 24%, on average study of +35% is hitting close to home with only +2 STR racial for chimp.

 

[Horwath]

I think its absurd.

Size should instead be driving Strength, or at the very least applying a modifier.

tiny: -8
small: -4
medium: 0
large: +4
huge: +8
gargantuan: +12

 

[dave2008]

The chimp strength, even if measurably higher than humans, on average, is very overestimated.

Same muscle size between human and chimp is 35% higher strength on the chimp size, but that is because of lots of fast twitch muscles, around 2/3rds. But those tire out very fast, so humans have huge endurance advantage over chimps.

also in terms of weight, there is not much difference, world average for human is 60kg and for chimps is 50kg.

If we take it to game mechanics.

we can get human with 10 STR and d4 unarmed damage and 60% hit rate,
average 1,5 damage per hit

we give chimp 12 STR, only +2 racial,
and we get 1d4+1 damage and 65% hit rate,
2,27 damage per hit, +51% increase,
OFC if we based damage on greatsword, 2d6, increase would only be 24%, but between unarmed of 51% and greatsword 24%, on average study of +35% is hitting close to home with only +2 STR racial for chimp.

I am aware. Additionally, some of their "strength" is simply ferocity. They don't hold back. Also interesting is that higher proportion of fast twitch muscle may have an impact on their fine motor skills. So a chimp could never be proficient with thieves tools

 

[Tonguez]

so if I have Con 17 I can be a Large gnome?

 

[Horwath]

These factors − width, muscle mass, and weight − are factors that determine D&D Size.

They are why a strong Halfling wouldnt be D&D Small, regardless of height.

We had similar arguments during 3.5e

Friend wanted to play a halfling, but who is taller and not count as small for mechanics.

Sure, in addition you get +2 STR and -2 DEX when you go from small to medium.

He decided to stay small.